Can you name a climate scientist who disputes that humans are causing global warming?

There are a few who have the right credentials to call themselves a climate scientist and there are a few who may not have the requisite piece of paper from a University but have extensively studied the climate all the same.

The first ones that come to mind are listed below. There's perhaps another 10 or 12 which I haven't listed because they have strong connections to Exxon, Western Fuels and Chevron so their opinions are likely to be somewhat skewed.

I've included a link to each of the respective pages on Wikipedia with the exception of Kulka who doesn't appear to have a page (odd) so I've linked an article with some of his comments.

• Phil Stott (Geographical Biologist but has studied the climate) believes that the Sun is by far the largest contributor to global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott

• Sally Baliunas (Astronomer) believes that greenhouse gases can not be responsible for increased warming. Accepts the planet is warming, hasn't provided any alternative hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

• Bill Gray (Meteorologist) believes that global warming is a hoax and doesn't exist but somewhat contradictory is his claim that warming does exist but is caused by oceanic oscillations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

• George Kulka (Professor of Climatology - retired I think) states that most of the warming is natural and humans only have a small role to play

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225822.300...

• Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) cites the argument that CO2 levels have lagged behind temperatures in the past and therefore CO2 isn't a driver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Patterson

• William Kininmonth (Meteorologist) believes that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and that the IPCC have grossly over-estimated the human impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_(m...

• Nir Shaviv (Astrophysicist) believes that the majority of the warming to date can be attributed to natural causes but that the majority of future warming will be anthropogenic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

You know Dana, if any reasonable person went to their doctor and the doctor said "I'm sorry but I think you may have cancer, if we act now we can deal with it" it would be a fool who would ignore their doctor or try to brush aside the doctor's expert opinion. Well, the scientists are telling us the planet has cancer and that we need to act now before it gets worse. Too many people are ignoring them. Too many people are being slefish - it's not their planet it's everone's planet. - - - - - - - - - - - - TO C.BARLA (Above) Let me shed some light on the valid points you made. The last ice agen ended due to the position of Earth within the many cycles that it and the Sun go through, these cause peiodic and predictable warming and cooling. These natural cycles have been around since time immemorial and are the sole trigger for historical warming and cooling. We do know why the planet is waring today - an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. By and large the same gases provide a natural greenhouse effect that ensures this planet maintains a habitable temperature. They effectively insulate the planet due to their physical capability of blocking the escape into space of thermal radiation. Any changes to their concentrations affects the insulative properties of our atmosphere. We also know a great deal about the sun, so much so that we can measure variance down to millionths (of Watts per square metre per year) Finally, no these aren't the same people that were foretelling the coming of another ice age back in the 70's. This is more the work of the media than of scientists and is something that some skeptics have blown out of all proportion. In truth, there was no global cooling scare in the 70's as anyone who was around back then will confirm.

Not even coldfuse disputes some anthropogenic contribution to global warming - that should be enough to scare you to death and checking the evidence all over again!

The link below is a list of scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Yes, I was lazy enough to let Wikipedia do the work; however, it is well-referenced.

The only scientists listed in the "global warming is not occurring or has ceased" category are Timothy Ball, a geographer; Robert Carter, a geologist; and Vincent Gray, a coal chemist. I suppose one might question one or two of their disciplines, but all are apparently passionate about climate change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: You may find a number of the requested quotations in the "Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes" category. Here are some...

"global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"

"This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."

"There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."

"I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".

I can but won't because: (1) it would compromise my anonymity, some friends' identities, and personal conversations; but mostly (2) "dispute" is a continuum of "uncertainty" and every natural system contains uncertainty in the form of unexplained variance.

The majority of climate scientists support AGW, but that support ranges from 'evidence suggests' to 'damn sure' based on where their particular data have led them - and not all data are equal.

Deniers are a different set of people that predominantly believe in a binary solution (reject-accept), whose opinion is biased by an unyielding a prior assumption that the solution is 'reject', and who firmly dispute everything that does not support their belief regardless of what the evidence suggests - up to and including claims of vast global scientific conspiracies and imaginary political organizations.

===

Starbuck --

No, you are not the only one.

I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but Dr. William Gray seems to fall into that category. I don't think he believes that humans have enough effect to warm the planet at all, at least that was the impression I had when I saw him speak a couple of years ago. You might dispute that he's a climate scientist, because his primary career research has been in hurricane meteorology. I don't think that's fair, though. He's done a tremendous amount of important research in atmospheric science and I think it would be splitting hairs to argue that he's not a climate scientist.

You gave 3 good examples

Lindzen, Spencer, Christy

I think where you go wrong is those scientists probably agree that humans are causing some "warming" by our emissions of CO2 but that warming is small compared to other factors so in reality our emissions of CO2 aren't causing the recent warming but only slightly bumping up an already warming trend. They just don't think it is that significant a problem precisely because the sensitivity is low as you alluded to.

Can't give you a name but....

In the survey of the American Geophysical Union a mere 97.2% of the climatologists active in research answered "Yes" to:

Do you think human activity is a significant

contributing factor in changing

mean global temperatures?

1.4% answered no. 1.4% answered unsure.

And the AGU is not the only place to find climatologists. So, there are a few somewhere. Let's see if anyone can come up with a name.

By the way, a mere 96.4% answered "risen" to:

When compared with pre-1800s

levels, do you think that mean global temperatures

have generally risen, fallen, or

remained relatively constant?

My guess is that some interpreted "pre-1800" to include times many thousands of years ago, before the last ice age.

Bottom line: Even some climatologists will believe strange things. Let's see if anyone can find the needle in a haystack <grin>.

By the way folks, Lindzen has acknowledged that humans are the main cause of the present warming. He just thinks that some mysterious negative feedback (he's been unsuccessful at trying to prove it's clouds) will arise to save us.

Someone might find a public statement from Spencer, he won Realclimate's award for "the scientist with the greatest discrepancy between his scientific papers and his public statements" award recently.

Christy is the least likely possibility of the three. In 2003, the American Geophysical Union released a statement "Human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century." John Christy was a co-drafter of the statement. And, he's a pretty consistent guy.

The AGU strengthened their statement in 2007, but I can't find anything about Christy being involved.

Not sure if this will help, but I think Dr Jon Dehn at UAF might someone to talk to. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure he doesn't think climate change is anthropogenic. He is a vulcanologist, not a climatologist, though. I don't see anything in his publications that looks like what you are after, but link is below, check for yourself or give him a call.

[EDIT - I forgot Dr Akasofu, also at UAF, but, again, not a climatologist]

Ha, I am probably the only once who actually work with these people. We are inviting Lindzen, Singer actually to come out and help fight the AB32 debacle in California. Know them through Cohen and the APS members who have had it with the left wing anti science gig spewed by the socialist left. More and more of scientists are now coming forward as they see the danger in what is happening by these greedy scientists on this issue.

Dana, unfortunately you believe much of what you read especially from the Berkeley institution and that is your downfall. You have no idea what is going on behind the scenes and what is being done to stop this tirade by corrupt scientists in AGW and many other aspects of science today. The slander and libel by AGW scientists to non believers is unprecendented in science history and scientists are now fighting back to protect their reputation.

Spencer, like Lindzen, believes clouds are a net negative feedback.

Of course you can't have a feedback without the initial force; like Lindzen he believes man contributes to some warming but not much.

It is Spencer's work btw that is showing record high temperatures since early November. This month is really busting the records.